Chip Roy

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. I would just add to my friend from Virginia a great quote from Thomas Jefferson--because he knows I went to the University of Virginia. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. That is the purpose of the Second Amendment, and that is what we know. I would note that in this context, and I will yield another couple minutes to the gentleman if he wants it, when we are talking about the response from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they break our border purposefully, and then they want us to fix it with amnesty or with some policies to say that Texas has to just accept. I hear that the mayor of New York is all aghast that people are being dropped off in New York. He said, we need Federal Government help to deal with it. I am, like, welcome to the party, pal. This is what life is like in south Texas every single day. They break it. They break the border, and then they want you, the American people, to have to carry the water. They break the Defense Department, drive recruiting down to 40 percent, and then they put in language to draft our daughters, all in the name of so-called equity and equality. They break our criminal justice system. They break the backs of our law enforcement community. Then they say, we are going to take your guns, your ability to defend yourself. They break the energy system in our country. Then they say, just go buy a Tesla. What is wrong with you?

Mr. ROY. What is wrong with you? Go buy a Tesla. You can plug in. You can drive through west Texas, 300 miles. Don't worry about it. Stop off in Eden, Texas, where, no doubt, they have a charging station and spend $70,000 for the pleasure. They break the back of the economy, drive up in inflation, and they say, suck it up, buttercup. Go buy yourself some expensive chicken and rice. They break the back of this body, this institution, and they ignore their colleagues when their colleagues are saying the chickens are going to come home to roost. That is the reality of what we are dealing with: A purposeful breaking the back of this country and a tearing apart of the threads that hold us together. I am going to just say it here on the floor. If we don't start respecting Federalism, the ability to agree to disagree, then this country is doomed. It will break apart under its own weight, and it will be my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that amassed the weight that will break the bow. That is where we are headed if we don't start respecting the ability of individuals in this country to agree to disagree, allow Texans to be Texans, allow Californians to be Californians. Unite under the flag of the United States under our core principles but stop shredding our ability to disagree. Stop breaking this country and forcing the American people to buy it. I yield the balance of the time to my friend Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. ROY. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. I think our time has expired. I appreciate the speaker and the staff here tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. ROY. I ask of the Chair how much time we have remaining.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time here on the floor. I appreciate, as I said a minute ago, my friend from Louisiana, Representative Johnson, for his steadfast defense of the Constitution of the United States; his willingness to stand up for all the important values, from life to marriage; but importantly being a voice for this body, for the Republican Conference, and where we want to take this country; what we know the American people want us to do; and to stand athwart the absolutely absurd policies of a Democrat majority that doesn't give a whit about the people that they are rolling over in a quest to placate their radical leftist policies, whether it is energy or open borders, and I appreciate the gentleman from Louisiana and his efforts. I am here to talk about my Democratic colleagues and the extent to which the American people need to understand: They break it, you buy it. And that is the reality of what is happening. My Democratic colleagues are breaking--breaking this country, breaking up your families, breaking up our secure border, breaking up our military, breaking up our court system, the rule of law, breaking up our police, our law enforcement community. They are breaking up our economy, breaking the strength of the American dollar. They are breaking our position in the world, and they are breaking this body, the people's House. And it is high time it stopped. And we can only hope that in November we get a change so that we can stop it. And then my message to my Republican colleagues will be: We better stop it because what is happening in the so-called people's House cannot be tolerated any longer. They break it. This body, the leadership of this country, they break it. You buy it. In reverse, I would say, America is great. Washington is broken. They are breaking it every day and, as a result, they are breaking this great country that our forefathers fought so hard to give to us and to our children and our grandchildren. You cannot defend the policies of the Democratic majority. It is impossible to do. And in fact, if you set out to harm the United States of America, I would defy someone to demonstrate to me how you could do better than my Democratic colleagues are doing on a daily basis, ripping apart the Constitution, ripping apart the shreds of the flag, ripping apart the people of this country. Dividing us. Dividing us by race, dividing us by income, dividing us by our adherence to the Constitution or devotion to the border and devotion to the rule of law. That is what is happening on a daily basis, and it is purposeful. Let's be perfectly clear that it is purposeful. The reason my Democratic colleagues focus so intently on January 6 is they want to divide us. The reason they want to have race-based policies throughout our government is they want to divide us. The reason they want to make the border be supposedly about not liking Brown people is because they want to divide us. Never mind that south Texas is full of Brown people who are sick of wide-open borders empowering cartels. That is the reality of what is going on in this Chamber, and in the Senate, and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Just focus on the border for a minute: Broken, wide open, abused by cartels, exploited by terrorists, exploited by gang members, criminals coming into our country, killing American citizens. Fentanyl pouring into our communities, 107,000 dead Americans. 850,000 known got-aways pouring in between the ports of entry because our Border Patrol is overwhelmed, with not only no support from this administration, but the purposeful attack by the Secretary of Homeland Security lying about the good men and women of Border Patrol, saying that they whipped people that they didn't, and then hiding behind some report, while they give them administrative punishment. That is your leadership, ladies and gentlemen. They are breaking it and you have to buy it. They are leaving our border wide open, and American citizens are dying. Let me repeat that. They are leaving our border wide open, broken, and American people are dying, thousands upon thousands of Americans dying from fentanyl pouring into our communities, pushed by China, exploited by cartels, left to be able to come into our country because Democrats do not care about securing the border. And more importantly, my Democratic colleagues are perfectly fine purposely leaving our border wide open. It is purposeful. It is purposeful. They are breaking it and you are going to have to buy it. How about our defense? Our Defense Department is being broken on a daily basis by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in the other Chamber, and particularly, this administration, shoving into the Department of Defense a radical, woke ideology, radical, woke programs, policies focused on diversity, and equity, and inclusion, all of the things that they cloak with critical race theory to destroy and break apart the institution of our defense. It is purposeful. Vaccine mandates, forcing 60,000 guardsmen to be on the chopping block to lose their entire career. It is purposeful. They are breaking it. They are breaking that military you love. They are breaking that Department of Defense that needs to be there on that wall defending us. They are breaking it. They are breaking it by tucking tail and running out of Afghanistan with $85 billion of equipment there and 12 or 13 dead servicemembers and no accountability. No accountability for the brass at the Pentagon and no accountability so far at the White House for tucking tail and running. They are breaking our Defense Department. You talk to the servicemembers who were in my office, coming in in tears because they are about to lose their entire career because they choose not to take a politicized vaccine. Oh, by the way, by another broken governmental agency, or agencies, our whole public health system being radicalized by my colleagues on the other side of aisle to strike fear in the hearts of the American people, to watch them push aside and brush under the rug gain-of- function research and all that we see unfolding in China in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, all that we know about the funding, American funding that was tied to that. All that we know about the absurdity of locking down schools, shutting down our schools so our kids are stuck in masks, stuck in the corner and not able to go to school, the damage it has done to our kids, the mental health issues, destroying the education of our young, all chasing the teachers' unions. We have seen the mandatory--or efforts at mandatory vaccines-- thankfully, partially struck aside, but many still in place, breaking the back of the people's trust in their public health, breaking the back of the people's ability to serve in the military and defend this country, breaking the back of people being able to be Federal public servants working for Border Patrol or other Federal agencies. Why? Because of fealty to Anthony Fauci, being the great wizard of public health while he poses for magazine covers and throws out pitches at baseball games. Meanwhile, your defense is broken. Your public health is broken, and you are going to have to buy it. How about crime on the streets of the United States of America? How about the 12 Democrat-run cities that have called for defunding their police and have seen skyrocketing crime enveloping the cities? The businessowner I spoke to today in Baltimore who says he is going to have to shut down his franchise because of rampant crime in Baltimore. Austin, Texas, which cut its police by a third and has seen homicides skyrocket from 59 to 89, has seen 911 calls unanswered, drug trafficking increasing. Taking police off the streets in Austin, Texas. We have seen 50 of the biggest urban areas see a 5 percent decrease in their police budgets, while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they are doing no such thing. But my friend, Mr. Johnson, rattled off quote after quote after quote in the House Judiciary Committee of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle calling for defunding of the police. Of course, it is an attack on our police. They are breaking our Police Department, breaking the backs of our men and women in blue and leaving our streets exposed to lawlessness and danger, and it is purposeful. How about energy? Could you take a more ridiculous position than to take the strength of national security, of having abundant oil and gas, the ability to lead on nuclear, and, instead, chase unicorn energy policies of nothing but solar and wind so that on a cloudless, windless day--or cloudy, windless day, you sit back and watch your energy plummet and your grid weaken. What kind of a country's leadership does that to its people? I would say the kind that want to break it. I would say the kind that want to chase the fairy tales and the unicorn energy policies that this administration wants to pursue. We could have nuclear power. It doesn't create any carbon dioxide. Do my colleagues on the other side of aisle want to do that? No. Because this is about fear. This is about breaking American energy. This is about breaking the back of it, so you can get on your private plane and fly to Davos and fit in with the Western Europeans and how great they are, while they are now burning wood to heat their homes. We have the greatest national security asset you could possibly imagine, which was full and complete energy independence, and we are completely flushing it down the toilet, to break it and to break it purposely. And we don't have to do it. We have abundant energy, abundant, clean-burning natural gas that we could export to other countries, as we were doing, driving down carbon dioxide. We could be producing nuclear facilities all across this country with zero CO2 production. But we are not. Instead, we are chasing--literally, we are tilting at windmills, dotting the landscape with windmills. A couple of weeks ago in Texas, we had 8 percent of the wind capacity available in our grid. Absolutely astounding what we are doing to the energy of the United States of America. Inflation. I mean, I can't even get all this in, the absurd policies of Democrats. I have already covered border, could go further. Already talked about defense; could go further. Didn't even get into Ukraine and the lack of briefings and the $56 billion we just dumped into Ukraine, with zero indication of a strategy of what we are actually going to do, while we expand NATO, with zero indication about how that is going to impact Article 5, and an 800-mile border and whether NATO's going to upend its end of the bargain when we fund the vast majority of NATO. I didn't even talk about that part of defense. I didn't talk about crime. I mean, I talked about crime, but I didn't get into every aspect of it. I didn't get into every aspect of energy. Now I am talking about inflation. The wisdom of this administration coming in and dumping $1.9 trillion--I don't even remember what the name of that ridiculous bill was, but it was garbage. And it is now driving up the cost of goods and services for you, the American people. They are breaking it. They are breaking your jobs. They are breaking your income. They are breaking your ability to buy goods and services and you are, literally, going to have to buy it, and you are going to have to pay a lot for it, because they are spending money we don't have. They are printing money, throwing it out in the economy, driving up the prices of goods, while they are, simultaneously, restricting the ability for us to develop energy, to have abundant energy that you can afford. You like $4.50 gasoline? Well, guess what? Your Democratic leadership just defended that as being great. In a Rules Committee debate this week, when I sat in that room debating the rules, literally, the Democratic Rules Committee was talking about how great it is that the price of oil has come down. They were talking about the price of copper going down. Well, I have spent a lot of money on copper to wire my home. It is expensive as heck. It is now locked up in cages. But do you know what the price of copper going down means? Heading into a recession. That is the reality of what we are facing. That is the truth. Our economy is getting ripped to shreds, the price of goods and services are going up. And it is purposeful. Spending money we don't have. How can you justify spending $2 trillion, printing that money, and dumping it out there to drive up the price of goods and services, while cutting off the production of oil and gas, not developing nuclear, increasing the price of gasoline, increasing the price of energy in your homes? It could only be purposeful. They are breaking it. They want to break it so they can live in unicorn land. But you are going to have to buy it, and it is going to be expensive. How about the state of the rule of law? How about the state of the family? How about the state of marriage? Just yesterday, on this floor--just yesterday, on this floor, we passed a law to force recognition by one State of another State's marriage, but by thereby doing that, for the first time, I think this body, certainly Members on this side, supporting the redefinition of marriage, which was manufactured by the 2015 Supreme Court decision, manufactured and forced upon the States, a redefinition of marriage. Now you see the wailing and gnashing of teeth because this court dared to say that Roe v. Wade was bad law, and that we should defer to the States in the protection of life and the recognition that that is the appropriate law under the Constitution. Lastly, I would point out when we are talking about breaking it, this body is the best example of my Democratic colleagues not giving a whit about you, the people, rolling over and destroying the people's House, destroying this institution. I have not been able to offer an amendment on the floor of this body. Can't do it. Got to go to Rules. Beg for crumbs. They drive through so-called suspension of the rules bills. We get them often hours before, at most, a day or two before they are on the floor being asked to be voice voted. If we don't have a group of us on the floor monitoring those bills, they will go through without a vote. They don't care because voting doesn't matter, as evidenced by proxy voting, forcing a new rule that says you can turn your voting card that you, the voters, gave to representatives and give that to another member of Congress, upending the constitutional order which requires presence, a quorum, physical presence, debate. That is what the Constitution contemplates, and it is my Democratic colleagues who, for the first time in history, upended our requirement that we be present in the body of the House of Representatives to do our job. Blowing apart--blowing apart--this people's House. I will note, as I often do, that I am not saying that everybody on this side of the aisle has clean hands on all of these points. A lot of Republicans are taking advantage of the proxy voting that my Democratic colleagues created for the first time in history. They should not. I will say that to every member. I don't care if they are Freedom Caucus leadership or anybody in between. I will not back away from saying proxy voting is not only unconstitutional, it is wrong, and it is destroying this body. Forced magnetometers in this false name of security. Masks being forced upon members of Congress on the floor of the House, which have now been brushed aside because I guess Anthony Fauci or somebody decreed that somehow, it is now safe to walk around without masks until they say it is not safe. I yield to my friend from Virginia here in one second. I just want to say in conclusion to this part, and then I want to engage with my friend. My Democratic colleagues, unfortunately with a little bit of help from a few of my Republican colleagues on occasion, are breaking this country. They are breaking this body. They are breaking our Constitution, and it is purposeful. There are no other words to say what is happening at our border but that it is purposeful. There are no other words to say about what is happening on our streets with our law enforcement but that it is purposeful. There is no other thing you can say about our energy policies but that it is purposeful. There is nothing you can say about the spending and the inflation but that it is purposeful. The attack on the institution of marriage, the breakdown of the family, the targeting and the policies against life, that it is purposeful. The fact that we are destroying this body with proxy voting, that it is purposeful. The fact that we are destroying the Defense Department and the very core values of our men and women in the military with their woke policies, with their vax mandates, irrespective of what that does to defense, driving our recruiting down to unforeseen levels, but that it is purposeful, and it is wrong. I would just challenge my Republican colleagues that we better come in, if the American people give us power in November, and do the right thing to protect this country and to stop breaking it because the American people are having to buy it. I yield to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I have to head down to the House Judiciary Committee to defend the Second Amendment from the attacks being levied by my Democratic colleagues as we speak. We are in there debating. I would add just one thing to what the gentleman just eloquently put out, the understanding for the American people that when this Nation was founded, we were dealing with debate about what the structure of government should look like. Those who were suspicious of consolidating power, the anti-Federalists, were raising questions. James Madison, a Virginian, was making points through the Federalist Papers. He said in response to some of the critiques: ``All the other checks and balances will always prevent tyranny, but should tyranny ever triumph, the U.S. Constitution provides a mechanism to restore constitutional order,'' he says. ``Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,'' Madison wrote, ``the existence of subordinate governments, the State government to which the people are attached,'' their State and local governments, ``and by which the militia officers are appointed,'' because that well-regulated militia meant a well- ordered militia, not regulated the way we talk about it, a well-ordered militia. ``And it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.'' The final point is, the Second Amendment does not create a right of revolution against tyranny. That inherent right is universal. The Second Amendment provides the tools and the power for the people to stand and thwart tyranny.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Louisiana for yielding to me. I appreciate his time on the floor. I was in the House Judiciary Committee. I will be spending some time in the 30-minute Special Order here in a second, dealing with a lot of the issues that my friend was just talking about, in particular dealing with energy. What I will be talking about is: They break it; you buy it. That is the reality of what we are dealing with, with our Democratic colleagues here in the majority and in the administration. Energy is the perfect example of that. We are seeing that obviously in Texas, where we are sitting on a sea of oil and gas that we could be exploring further and producing for the world and driving down CO2. Instead, we are not because of the leftist policies of this administration. I will be beginning that in a minute. I appreciate the gentleman and thank him for holding this Special Order hour time on the floor for our colleagues.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle paint with a broad brush stroke the language offered by Justice Clarence Thomas, a Justice whom I consider to be a friend, a great defender of the Constitution, and a great member of the United States Supreme Court despite being pilloried by the left and laid out as something other than the great patriot that he is. In his concurrence, Justice Thomas wrote: ``After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court's substantive due process cases are `privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.'' Now, we could have a robust debate in the Judiciary Committee about this whole issue. We didn't do that. This bill was dropped on the body yesterday afternoon, an hour and a half before Rules. I went and testified before Rules, but we had no benefit of a debate in Judiciary Committee to have a deep discussion about this issue, about the constitutional implications. Nor did we have the ability to debate the reality that the words that this codifies Obergefell and Loving are simply false. It does no such thing. I do think in this case, as the chairman pointed out, that it is a full faith and credit recognition issue, but a lot of the rhetoric coming from the left is that this somehow codifies those two opinions. It does not. It does not do that because those opinions recognized rights under various legal theories, one of which is substantive due process, which Justice Thomas is pointing out he has concerns with because Justice Thomas has concerns with how we make law and how we recognize law. He has concerns about that, the how. It matters, and that is what Justice Thomas laid out. He never said anything about his conclusion on those specific questions but rather the how. As my colleague from Ohio and my colleague from Louisiana both adequately laid out, the majority opinion lays out very specifically their view about the implication of the Dobbs opinion on these other recognized rights under the previous precedent of the Court. But I think it merits noting that while we are here talking about the substance of the issue that it does matter when the Court steps in and makes law because we end up where we are right here. We end up in a situation with difficult decisions. For example, when does life begin? When does it begin? When do we have a duty to protect that life? We could have a very robust debate here in this body if we ever actually debated on the floor of the people's House, but we don't. When does life begin? It is a complicated question. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't really want to have that discussion, right? Does life begin at birth? Does life begin before birth? You say, Well, it is up to the mother. Well, it is not up to the mother a week after birth. We, society, protect that life, right? So the debate is: Do you protect that life a week before birth? Do you protect that life at conception? These are actually, difficult complex questions involving faith, involving values, involving life. But, no, no. We can't have a debate about that here and have a reasoned debate because the Court plucked that out from the people, and the Court manufactured an opinion to define when life begins and how we should deal with it. Now, we are talking about other issues, talking about marriage. We have had opinions that deal with marriage. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to put forward a bill that is clearly political in nature. They don't want to talk about inflation. They don't want to talk about wide-open borders. They don't want to talk about rampant crime. They don't want to talk about the state of this country, in decline, heading into a recession, where people are hurting across the country. They don't want to talk about that. So they bring forward a political bill. And then they want to take different issues and policy choices, marriage, marriage based on race, marriage based on sex, that this body didn't define; that State legislatures did define in varying disagreeable terms across the Nation.

Mr. ROY. The court steps in in 2015 and now, we are 7 years into recognition of same-sex marriage. And we can have a debate about the policy of that decision, but the Court steps in and says, there you go. And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to purposely, for political reasons, conflate lots of different issues. And I think it is important that my colleagues on this side of the aisle understand what we are doing here today; that we are going to vote on the recognition of marriage, as a body, as representatives of the people. Okay? Separate from whatever decision a court may make, we are going to make a decision here about the recognition of marriages across State lines where there are differences of opinion still to this day about how one defines marriage. In the name of full faith and credit, you will go to the people of Texas, by our elected Representatives, to my Republicans on this side of the aisle, Republicans will be voting on this floor today on the question of whether the Federal Government should tell Texas what marriages they have to recognize, irrespective of what the Court has said. That is a vote; that is a choice; that is a decision. We should not hide behind the use of the Equal Protection Clause with respect to marriage not being impacted because of race, to then say that marriage must be recognized for same-sex purposes by a vote by the body, by the people. It is a choice, and we should understand that today, and we should understand what we are voting on since we never had the luxury or the benefit or the responsibility of debating this in the Judiciary Committee where we should have debated it.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of my friend from Florida (Mr. Gaetz) a few minutes ago with respect to his position about what this bill will do in terms of fear and its purpose of creating fear among the people. That is the reality. That is what we are dealing with here. Texas has an alert system. States have alert systems. That is where this properly resides. That is where the police power resides, in the States. In fact, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee even acknowledged this reality that, well, okay, States have this, but here is a Federal program we are going to create with $2 million. You can use it if you want. This is another example of Washington creating another department, another position, spending more money that we don't have in order to have a policy objective of continuing to advance fear among the American people. Remember the COVID alerts? How many alerts do we need on our phones to create fear in the minds of the American people? Allow the States to make a decision about when there is something that is meritorious, whether it is a tornado alert, whether it is an AMBER Alert. Allow the local jurisdictions to make that decision, not bureaucrats in Washington. That is the reality. I think it would probably be a more advantageous use of our time to develop a congressional stupidity alert system or a congressional harm alert system. I mean, we do it every single day. That is what this body is actually engaged in on a regular basis, harming the American people through either nonaction or action. As we speak, maybe we should have an alert about the inflation running rampant around this country because of the rampant spending, as evidenced by this very bill with another $2 million for a position in the Department of Justice. Maybe we need an alert system for the literal stream of people coming across the border in Eagle Pass right now and the fentanyl pouring across into our communities, endangering the American people, empowering cartels at our peril. Maybe, perhaps, we need an alert system for more COVID mandates, more mask mandates, and more shutdowns in our schools where our children get harmed and where they have mental health issues because of what this body does. Maybe we need an alert system for the wokeism and the vax mandates at the Department of Defense that are damaging our ability to recruit. Just now, on the floor this week, we are going to be taking up the National Defense Authorization Act. We can't even attain 40 percent recruiting standards right now in our United States Army because of wokeism and because of vaccine mandates driving our personnel away from the Department of Defense. Maybe we need an alert system for the American people to know what is happening at the Department of Defense. Maybe we need an alert on our failures to vote, our proxy voting in this very body, and our virtual voting from boats by some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We could have so many alert systems that we could be actually educating the American people on what they are getting here in this august body, the people's House. That would be a more valuable alert system than carrying out the function of the State and local police power that is inherent in our Constitution, which this body tramples upon on a regular and daily basis.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and as someone who represents San Antonio, an inordinate number of veterans, Joint Base San Antonio, Army Futures Command, I regret to rise in opposition to the legislation before us. I respect the enormous amount of work that has gone into this legislation by the committee staff, by the ranking member, by the chairman, by the Senate. Obviously, it is an important issue, and it is critical. I have many friends here, particularly veterans, who support this measure, and I understand why. Every single one of us wants to make sure that we take care of this issue, and frankly, it has been way too long in getting to it. I agree with that completely. But, unfortunately, I cannot support this bill because this bill spends about $285 billion that we don't have. We have to address the issue in this body of spending money we don't have. The chairman said: Well, why don't you raise it on other issues? I raised it on every single issue. I raised it on a $2 million bill about 30 minutes ago on the floor. At some point, we have to pay for the stuff that we are spending it on or the very things that these veterans sacrificed for will be made completely and utterly worthless. We are destroying the Republic that these men and women sacrificed for, and we are destroying it in this Chamber by our incompetence and by our irresponsible refusal to actually manage the affairs of the Republic appropriately. Putting this bill on autopilot to the tune of $680 billion of mandatory spending with $280 billion unpaid for, which we can pay for right now with existing COVID funds, we could pay for it right now with the elimination of the SALT deduction, we could pay for it right now with any number of spending cuts and/or tax increases--if we wanted to have that debate on the floor of the House--but we are not doing it. We do a disservice to the veterans who are sick because of the burn pits. We do a disservice to the veterans who laid their lives on the line and died for this country. We do a disservice to the military that we say that we support when we are not spending money that we actually have, as opposed to printing money and borrowing money. Putting it on autopilot, when 60 percent of our spending every year is already on autopilot--when we are $30.5 trillion in debt. Instead of the established scientific framework, we put 20 conditions in without scientific evidence which will cause a backlog, which the VA even acknowledges will cause a backlog. These are real concerns that we ought to address. Fundamentally, you have to pay for that which we are spending. We are undermining the sacrifice of the very veterans that we say that we are helping with this measure by not doing it with fiscal responsibility.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. Today, the United States Supreme Court stood up in defense of the Constitution in recognizing that it is the people--the people--who should be able to come together and make decisions about life and to be able to stand up and protect the God-given right to life. Here today on the floor of this body, the people's House--the so- called people's House--is taking up legislation that is in direct conflict with the United States Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and the right to keep and bear arms. It is purposeful. Do you know what? When our colleagues say things like what the President said, that whether it is a 9-millimeter pistol or a rifle, I am going to continue to push to eliminate the sale of those things. When it is Representative Mondaire Jones saying that semi-automatic weapons would qualify as assault weapons and these things should be banned. Or when the Democrats tweeted that semi-automatic rifles are weapons of war, then we should believe you. We should believe you that you want to take those weapons. That is what you are saying. That is what my colleagues are saying. Here is the thing: my colleagues say, oh, don't worry, this is just money for mental health. Do you know what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and some academics say? They have put out stories talking about how supposedly conservatives are suffering from mental health issues and that Republicans have become the cult of the mentally ill. ``Is political conservatism a mild form of insanity?'' writes Psychology Today. You get article after article. What do you think you want to do with the mental health money? What do you think you want to do? You want to come after our ability to defend ourselves against the very tyranny you want to undermine by taking away the weapons we can use to defend ourselves against that tyranny. That is the purpose. My colleagues on this side of the aisle--the handful who are going along with it--should be ashamed of themselves because right now, today, we have a duty to stand up here and defend our right to defend ourselves against the very tyranny that you ignore.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, it is always good to be here in a nice empty Chamber, the definition of debate here in the people's House. But such is the way of our current process of debate. I always try to remind the American people that as they are no doubt all gathered around their living rooms watching C-SPAN, sitting around talking about the issues of the day that there are two Members of the House of Representatives here, and that this is somehow what debate looks like. We just passed an inauspicious milestone last week in which we had the 6-year anniversary of not having offered an amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives in open debate. Not one Member of the House of Representatives for the last 6 years has been able to go down to the desk and offer an amendment to change a piece of legislation. That is not what the American people think we do. They think we actually sit down here and offer an amendment and we debate and go through stuff, but that never happens. I think that really is kind of endemic of the problem why people are so frustrated with this town, but I think there is something deeper going on in our country, something deeper that merits focus. As the Marquis de Lafayette has famously said something along the lines of America is great because America is good. I believe that. But I am increasingly curious if all Americans do. We have a cultural problem in this country. We should be honest. We have been kind of fat and happy for a while. Robust economy, generally peaceful and secure communities over the last several decades, low interest rates, housing. But now the chickens seem to be coming home to roost. Interest rates are rising. National debt is skyrocketing. Inflation is off the charts. Food prices are up. Home prices are up. Gas prices are at $5 a gallon and rising. Crime is rising in our communities, big cities in particular but across the country. Fentanyl is pouring in. Record deaths. Opioid poisonings and overdoses. Wide open borders. The cartels have control of our borders. The price of goods and services are crushing American families. That is the reality of what we are facing right now. And I talk about those things a lot, and there is something that has been on my mind this week. This week for a lot of fathers is Father's Day. This week for fans of college baseball is the week of the College World Series. I am a big fan of college baseball, as is my son. I brought him up here to see the University of Virginia play in 2014 and again in 2015. It is next week. We have got the University of Texas, my law school alma mater, Texas A&M University, and six other schools playing in the College World Series. But my pure sports love is golf. I was a not very good walk-on at the University of Virginia. Had I been better, then I wouldn't be relegated to this Chamber. I would be out and about making money playing the tour. But alas, here I am as a Member of Congress, and I am going to use floor time on the House of Representatives to talk about the PGA Tour, something I never really thought that I would do. It never really seems to rise to the level of something you would talk about in the people's House. But here is the problem: Today, we have a few American players on the PGA Tour that are bolting for enormous, guaranteed checks by the Saudi Arabian bankrolled LIV Golf league. Now, that catches my attention because it gets to the heart of something that is wrong in this country. Those individuals are doing themselves, their reputations, their chosen sport, and the American communities in which they have previously allegedly invested, a very deep disservice in the process. The PGA Tour is absolutely right to sanction them for it. This week is the week of the United States Open Championship. It is at The Country Club in Brookline, Massachusetts. That is particularly noteworthy for golf fans because it is the site of an epic story of a young, American man, Francis Ouimet, who was able to win the United States Open unexpectedly back in, I think, 1913--I'm pulling that from my memory--over a century ago. It was the site of the epic comeback of the American Ryder Cup team in 1999 when University of Texas Longhorn, Justin Leonard, sunk a 40-foot putt on the 17th hole. It is a historic venue right outside of Boston, a historic American city deeply rooted in our history. And yet, there is a cloud hanging over the United States Open this week. And that cloud is the greed and the absurd self-absorbed nature of a handful of the PGA Tour's elites who are willing to sell their athletic soul, their professional soul to a Saudi Arabian league for their shekels. And it is absolutely an abomination. Thankfully, most of the best players in the world are proudly and loudly holding firm, players like Rory McIlroy, Jordan Spieth, Justin Thomas, to name a few. But this issue is bigger than just a few players or a mere competition within the game of golf that some want to dismiss it as. The LIV Golf league, as I said, is beholden to the Saudis and helping them whitewash their global reputation and history of human rights abuses and supporting terrorists, the very terrorists that attacked America 21 years ago. The Saudi golf league is bad for professional golf for a host of reasons, from the Saudi's human rights abuses to the gouging of Americans on gas. The Saudis are not our friends. LIV is ignoring Saudi Arabia's connections to the national tragedy of 9/11 or the many other grave human rights abuses that the country has faced over the years, and it is disappointing to witness. Handing tens of millions of dollars to professional golfers like Bryson DeChambeau, Dustin Johnson, and Phil Mickelson who can look the other way, ignore the questions all for their personal enrichment. What does that say about who we are? Let's talk about the PGA Tour for a second. Total charitable dollars from the PGA Tour and its tournaments have totaled $3.37 billion for thousands of charities across this country in most States across the Union. $3.37 billion. Let me stop for a second for those who don't follow golf and say, Why are you talking about golf on the floor of the House? There are dozens of PGA Tour events across this country. There is one in the district I represent in central Texas, the Valero Texas Open. The Valero Texas Open is the sixth oldest professional golf tournament worldwide, including the majors, the third oldest on the PGA Tour not counting the majors, and the longest tournament held in the same city, the hundredth year in 2022. Their charitable giving is one of the leaders in the clubhouse on the PGA Tour with $209 million in total and a record $22 million from the 2022 tournament. That is 209 million charitable dollars flowing in through the Valero Texas Open into the communities I represent. So many good things come out of that. Now, let's talk a little bit about the guys that are bolting for the deep pockets of the Saudi Arabians. Phil Mickelson, famously six-time major winner. $133,772,000 in career earnings on the PGA Tour. Dustin Johnson, $107.5 million. Sergio Garcia, $66 million, Bryson DeChambeau, $35 million. Tiger Woods, $186 million. Now, let me stop. Tiger said no. Tiger was offered, I have heard, upwards of a billion dollars, certainly something like $750 million to attach his brand and go join this so-called LIV Golf league, and he said no so far. That is the right thing to do. How many of us would have turned down $750 million or a billion dollars? How many of us would have turned that down? So far Tiger has turned that down, and he should be thanked for that. Rory McIlroy has had $106 million of earnings on the tour. Jordan Spieth has had $75.8 million of winnings on the tour. They have all said no. But not Phil, not Dustin, not Sergio, not Bryson, not a handful of others who have all said, I am going to go sell my soul for $200 million. In the case of Phil Mickelson, $200 million of guaranteed money that came from the Saudi Arabians. How can we condone a league funded by the same people who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, murdered journalists, promote anti- Semitism, and stage mass executions? I had family who had to work in Saudi Arabia; one in the State Department, one in oil and gas. They had to be careful about whether they had a Bible with them. They had to be careful about what they said, how they acted. My female family members had to be careful about where they were, what they were wearing, what they were doing. And now you have the 9/11 Families United that have spoken out against this LIV Golf league due to Saudi Arabia's role in training and financing the 9/11 hijackers, 15 of whom were citizens of Saudi Arabia. It feels like a betrayal, the national chair of the 9/11 Families United said. My husband, who died in the 9/11 attacks, was a scratch golfer. He was a Phil Mickelson fan. He even tried to be a pro before he worked on Wall Street. My youngest is the captain of his golf team. Our family understands the integrity that the sport requires, but these guys are not interested in any of that. And that is the story. For those that are watching this or this clip, if you are watching this, if you are a golf fan, you have lived and breathed watching these majors over the last several decades. Phil Mickelson is about my age. When he was playing golf out in Arizona I was at the University of Virginia. We overlapped a couple years. He was good. I was terrible. Here I am. But I have been watching him his whole career as a fan. I have some friends who have been on tour. I have friends that are in the golf industry. But I am watching Phil Mickelson. We all cheered when he finally won the Masters in 2004. We cheered again when he won again in 2006, and again when he won in, I think, 2010. Then when he won the PGA Championship last year we thought, Oh my gosh, he won this over the age of 50. That is extraordinary. He is going to be able to sail off into the sunset and go out and get the adulation he deserves and carry golf forward. Then over the last year he and all these others say, You know what, no, that is not good enough. The whole purpose of the PGA Tour is a meritocracy. You go out and earn it. Nobody gives you anything. It is a great American sport because no one gives you anything. You walk out on the course, you tee it up, and you better your peers, and for that you win the purse. It is what draws people to the sport. An individual alone standing on the course, standing on a green with thousands of people watching, millions on TV, with a club in their hand and one ball and they have to execute. What does Mickelson do? What does Sergio do? What does Bryson do? They sell their reputations. They sell their soul for Saudi blood money, the very money, the same wealth funds that are being used to challenge our national security and our well-being. This isn't competition, as some say. What are you afraid of? This is another tour competing with the PGA tour. Okay. Then go prove an economic model and go out and compete, but don't go sell your soul to someone buying it. The Saudi Golf League is exhibition golf. As many say, the PGA tour is for people who want to earn their success in the game of golf and compete against the best. Importantly, as I said--there is an old adage: Dance with the one who brung ya. The PGA tour goes back a century. The game of golf is moving from the aristocracy of the gentlemen's amateur ranks to the world of the mid- 20th century with Ben Hogan, a Texan; Byron Nelson, a Texan; and Sam Snead from Virginia, and they built a tour. They literally followed the sun: tournaments in California, tournaments in Florida, Texas, the South, they move up and they play up the East Coast. They follow the sun--it is a tour--and they made peanuts. They did it for the love of the game. They did it building a league. They came out in the sixties--Arnie's Army--Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus, and they built this tour up to what I just said, $3.37 billion in charitable giving. In communities across the country--the Valero Texas Open, which I represent. All of the great spots around this country: Pebble Beach, Riviera, Colonial in Fort Worth. These are integral in our communities. These guys just walk away. Whatever. I don't care about building up the next generation. I don't care about what this sport means. I don't care about the fact that the PGA tour has to compete against the NFL, the Major League Baseball, the NBA, NHL, all the other forms of entertainment, college football, college basketball. No. No. I want to look out for me. I want to look out for myself. I am going to go take $200 million in guaranteed money--or $120 million in guaranteed money, if you are Dustin Johnson, $20 to $30 million for Ian Poulter, and $100 million if you are Bryson DeChambeau. Getting guaranteed money so you can go play golf with not the best-- with money that came from Saudi Arabia, the purpose of which is to target and disrupt the PGA tour, and nothing more. It is an absolute embarrassment. As I said before, as I sit here on the floor of the House, why am I spending time on this? First of all, I have great passion for it as a personal matter. I have devoted a lot of my life to this sport. I love it. I teach my kid this sport. It is a sport based on honor. It is a sport based on integrity. That is why things like The First Tee program are valuable. You learn the rules. You follow the rules. It is a meritocracy. You win by going to the course and beating the course. You treat each other with respect. It is a great sport. Now these guys are just throwing that away. Throwing the honor of your commitment to an entity, an organization, that made you wealthy for playing a game; you throw that away to go kiss the ring of Saudi royalty and get your check. Go cash your check. Is that what life is all about? Is that where we are? I started this talking about America is great because America is good. Well, what is good about that? I am all for competition. I am all for people prospering and succeeding based on their skills and their talents: starting a business, playing a sport, whatever they are, artists. Go forward and sell your product. You want to go start a rival league, a Canadian football league that competes with the NFL. We had the USFL for a while. Way back in the day we had the NBA and the ABA. We had the NFL and then we had the AFL, then they merged. We got the NFL with an NFC and AFC. I get that. Time changed. But you are going to go sell your soul to the Saudis? Have some self- respect. Actually stand up for the sport that you said you love, and you want to share with the world. Stand alongside the tour, the sports franchise, that actually is building up the game, creating development leagues like the Korn Ferry Tour, which was built out of the Hogan tour, helping our communities across the country. One last point of all this. I have heard the former President, President Trump, endorsing the LIV Golf League. Could that possibly be because Trump National Doral or Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey will host tournaments? I suspect so. Sure as heck not because it is an advocacy for what is good for the sport. It is not an advocacy for the tour that has allowed those individuals to be elevated and compete against the sports that get, frankly, greater notoriety. Here is what is interesting about what the tour has done. These are the highest paid athletes of all time, as reported by Sportico: Number two, Tiger Woods, $2.1 billion--this is all in, endorsements and dollars earned; Arnold Palmer at $1.5 billion at number 3; Jack Nicklaus at number 4 with $1.38 billion; Phil Mickelson, $1 billion; Greg Norman, $815 million. These guys are all in the top 15. The tour has made these guys wealthy, and they turn around and they stab the tour in the back to go chase their 30 shekels. It is absolutely unconscionable. I stand with the tour. I stand with the players that I mentioned before, the Jordan Spieths, the Justin Thomases, the Rory McIlroys, the guys that are standing up and saying: No thanks, I am going to stick with the tour, I am going to dance with the one who brung ya. I stand up for the tour events throughout this country that are raising millions of dollars for charity, providing jobs, providing economic growth and activity. And, importantly, standing up for this great sport, this great institution. As we sit here in U.S. Open week, what I believe is the greatest golf tournament in the world because it is open to anyone who can compete. If you can go string together seven rounds of golf, you can be the United States Open champion. In the spirit of the country club right outside of Brookline, and the story of Francis Ouimet--made into a movie, by the way--that is the spirit of what you can do in America if you just set out to go do it. The Good Book in Luke 12:48 says: To whom much is given, much is expected, much is demanded--depending on your translation. These guys have made hundreds of millions of dollars playing a game. They owe the respect to the tour and to the guys they play alongside. They owe to the communities that have enriched them and rallied around them, their courtesy of defending and standing up for the sport and the league and the PGA tour in this country that has enabled them to prosper and has helped grow this game into one of the great economic engines and sport franchises in the world. Shame on them for walking away from the PGA tour. God bless the PGA tour for pushing back and saying: You don't get to do that. God bless the members of the tour that are standing strong, standing alongside the community members, standing alongside all of the sponsors and the people that have made that work and have built such a great institution. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding. I know that he cares deeply about this issue and spends a whole lot of time working across the aisle and with our own Conference, trying to get this body to focus on this issue of spending. Frankly, that is on both sides of the aisle. We are sitting here now, $30.5 trillion of debt. That is a number that nobody in America can possibly understand what that means. We talk about it. We say it. We put charts up, but nobody knows. $30.5 trillion, if you set out to count to that, one Mississippi, it would take you 967,000 years. I mean, think about that. It is patently absurd. Yet, we are going to rack up another trillion and a half here in the next year, and then another couple of trillion. We are just going to keep piling it on. Interest rates are going up, and interest rates are going to keep going up, so that debt is going to pile up even further. The American people know this. They can't live their lives that way. Yet, here we are in this body, this so-called people's House, and we haven't had a single actual debate on spending in this body the entire time I have been here, much less this year. We just passed another milestone in this great body, the United States House of Representatives, in which we just spent the sixth year in which not one amendment was offered on the floor of this body in open debate, not one amendment. Has any rank-and-file Member of the United States House of Representatives been able to come to the floor and offer an amendment? You wonder why this place is broken? I mean, we just passed that milestone yet again. You never get a chance to have open debate here in the so-called people's House. I gave a speech a little while back from this podium on this floor that I called the United States House of free stuff because that is the way people view this body. Oh, we just got another check we can go write, another bill we can pass. It sounds good. It has something great in the title. You are talking about infant formula. Oh, you better vote for that. You can't vote against a bill that has infant formula in the title. Doesn't matter what it does. Doesn't matter if it will make it worse. Didn't matter what the power of the government is. If you put ALS in the title, don't vote ``no'' on an ALS bill. Well, then you hate people with ALS, right? Don't vote ``no'' on any bill that has something in the title. United States House of free stuff. Yet, this week, what are we going to vote on? We are going to have a bill, H.R. 7606, which will likely come up, that will give $400 million to ethanol producers. Never mind that that jacks up 30 cents a gallon on the price of gasoline. We are going to have a bill that has $12.7 billion over 10 years on wildlife recovery. Man, we are really being great stewards of the public trust here in the United States House of Representatives. That is the problem. That is what is broken, and the American people see it. They see that we are here not doing the work of the people because we never actually debate, vote, and figure out something, roll our sleeves up and say: ``Do you know what? We have X trillion dollars of income so we can only spend X trillion.'' We never do that. That fundamentally is what my friend from Texas is getting at, what my colleagues are here on the floor talking about. I would ask the Speaker where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are having any conversation whatsoever about only spending that which we take in. But, no, we can never have that conversation in the United States House of free stuff because it is a hell of a lot easier to go out on the steps and go preen and posture to a bunch of people in the media, saying about how evil people are if they dare vote against spending money we don't have. Madam Speaker, we should do our job, both sides of the aisle, to stop spending money we don't have.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. The gentlewoman from Texas asked: Do we want guns in the hand of dangerous people? The answer to that question is, of course not. But the question, the only question that matters, is, who constitutes a dangerous person? Who gets to decide, and why? That is the important part here. That is what we are talking about when we talk about due process. We have laws on the books in, I believe, every State in the Union, so-called Baker Act provisions to civilly commit persons who are a danger to themselves and others. We have such a law in Texas, but we didn't use it. We didn't use it against a young man who wasn't in school, was harming defenseless animals, was talking about raping women, was clearly not well. We didn't use it. There are more people killed in the United States by hands and knives than rifles. I don't want a crazy guy in my school with or without the ability to have a weapon. We should actually be serious about committing people who have mental health problems. That would actually solve the problem. Everything we are doing here today is a pretext. It is a pretext for targeting, confiscating, and eliminating our ability to have weapons. When people say things, it is a good idea to believe them. President Biden: `` . . . whether it is a 9-millimeter pistol or whether it is a rifle is ridiculous. I am continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things.'' Representative Mondaire Jones: ``If the filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it. If the Supreme Court objects, we will expand it. . . . We will do whatever it takes.'' Representative Ocasio-Cortez: Ban semiautomatics. House Democrats just yesterday tweeted: ``Semiautomatic rifles are weapons of war.'' Future Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was applauding the New Zealand Prime Minister's commencement speech about New Zealand's banning semiautomatic rifles. Representative Beto O'Rourke: ``Hell, yes, we are going to take your AR-15.'' Even Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, the gentlewoman from Texas: ``I have held an AR-15 in my hand. I wish I hadn't.'' She talks about a .50-caliber bullet, which isn't even true. This is a pretext, and we should oppose this.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. Why do we have guns? Why do we have the Second Amendment? Is it to hunt? Sure. Self defense? That is even more important. The fact is, if you read the founders--Federalist No. 46, James Madison contrasts us with the tyrannical governments of Europe who are, ``afraid to trust the people with arms.'' Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833: ``The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic. Since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these were successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.'' We have a Second Amendment because we understand in this country that there are some things, inalienable rights, that you cannot justly take away from a free and equal human being. Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress. Those are the facts. Jewish people in Germany were prohibited from owning firearms; 13 million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis. The Soviets instituted gun control and millions were killed; 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated. Mao disarmed the Chinese people; 20 million dissidents were exterminated. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge was able to take advantage of the fact that limited gun ownership to just hunters and killed 1.5 million to 3 million Cambodians. Turkey disarmed Armenians, and 1.5 million Armenians were killed in the Armenian Genocide. The South disarmed slaves and actively fought against their arming. And then in the 20th century, armed Black Army veterans, for example, in Louisiana, were able to defend against the KKK. Even fact-checking organization Snopes said: ``We find it reasonable to conclude that gun confiscations, facilitated by laws requiring the registration and/or licensing of firearms, played a crucial role in carrying out of 20th-century genocides.'' This is not fiction. This is in our lifetime. This is in our grandparents' lifetime. This is in our recent history. This is why the Second Amendment matters. It is not trivial. It is not something you just brush aside. This is a foundation of liberty. It is who we are. But in order to sell a lie to the American people that the government will protect them from all manners of evil, while defunding the police, leaving our borders wide open--I am glad my colleagues can suddenly find Uvalde on a map--while allowing dangerous cartels operating hundreds of miles into Texas, allowing fentanyl to pour into our communities and kill tens of thousands of children--the very children my colleagues say they wish to protect. In order to do this, Democrats in this body are willing to take away citizens' God-given right--yes, the God-given right that was mocked earlier--to protect himself or herself, or her family or his family, from harm--the very harm they foster by appeasing lawlessness, and importantly, from the very tyranny being applied to them to deny that right. That is what is at stake, this bill; and it gets brushed aside, raise the age limit. Well, there are constitutional questions to that, in the 4th Circuit, 9th Circuit, and other circuits. The second title in straw purchases, the very straw purchases the Democrat DAs don't even want to really prosecute, would prohibit a law- abiding citizen from giving a gun to a friend as a gift. Safe storage would make it unlawful for me to have the 22- and the 20-gauge, propped up by my door right now in Texas, to kill coyotes and snakes. It would make it unlawful. This will not do any good. It will harm Americans, and it undermines our foundational liberties that are crucial for a free state.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I noticed my colleague from Texas down here a little bit earlier talking about the tragedy in Uvalde. And I can tell you, as someone who represents central Texas and the district and the county that shares a border with Uvalde County, it hits close to home. But I would note that the President of the United States and my colleagues have suddenly found Uvalde and south Texas on a map. When we have got 15,000 people in a caravan coming to Texas; we have 700-some people, migrants, who have died along the border; we have mobile morgues being used in south Texas along the Rio Grande; and now suddenly, to go exploit a tragedy for political purposes, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can find Uvalde on a map. Because they sure as hell haven't been able to find Uvalde on a map over the last year and a half of this administration. We will have more to talk this week about the politicization of this tragedy in Uvalde, and targeting the pretext and the false use by my colleague from Texas of ``automatic weapons'' as opposed to semi- automatic weapons. But let's be clear: Our borders remain wide open, and Americans are dying in droves; hundreds and thousands of people across this country who are dying because of open borders. We will talk about it this week.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.